Thanks for pointing me to the list! Milorad
>________________________________ > From: Olivier Rossel <[email protected]> >To: [email protected]; Milorad Tosic <[email protected]> >Sent: Wednesday, August 7, 2013 12:20 PM >Subject: Re: best practice in assigning URIs to individuals > > >May be this discussion should take place in public-lod instead of here. >cf http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-lod/ > > > >On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 11:50 AM, Milorad Tosic <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Thanks all for helping me out! I totally agree with you. >> >> But, is there a strong argument (backed by a standard, for example, or a >> recommendation from a standard body ...) supporting this opinion that can >> be used in argumentation? >> >> Milorad >> >> >> >> >> >> >________________________________ >> > From: Olivier Rossel <[email protected]> >> >To: [email protected] >> >Sent: Wednesday, August 7, 2013 10:47 AM >> >Subject: Re: best practice in assigning URIs to individuals >> > >> > >> >Michale s answer can be illustrated when setting up URI derefencing. >> >I.e when people can "access" your resource via HTTP. >> >To achieve that, your URIs are mapped to URLs in your IT infrastructure. >> >This is technically possible only if the namespace of your URIs maps with >> >your domain name >> >and website structure. >> >So, in short: use your own namespace (and define it according to your IT >> if >> >you want URI dereferencing :) >> > >> > >> > >> >On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 8:11 AM, Michael Brunnbauer <[email protected] >> >wrote: >> > >> >> >> >> Hello Milorad, >> >> >> >> you should not create URIs in other peoples namespaces without their >> >> permission. >> >> >> >> So best practice would be "d1:R rdf:type d2:C2". >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> >> >> Michael Brunnbauer >> >> >> >> On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 06:00:27PM -0700, Milorad Tosic wrote: >> >> > Hi, >> >> > >> >> > The question may be somewhat out of focus of the group but since we >> have >> >> here a number of competent people I dared to post the question here. >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > Let us given an ontology O1 under development that has assigned domain >> >> "d1:". So, we have ownership of O1. For development of the O1 we find >> >> useful to use some knowledge defined in an ontology O2 with domain >> "d2:". >> >> Note that the O2 is an externally defined ontology not in our >> >> administration scope. Let's now assume we want to create a resource that >> >> would be an individual from the class "d2:C", where the class is >> defined in >> >> O2. >> >> > >> >> > What should be best practice to do: "d1:R rdf:type d2:C2" or "d2:R >> >> rdf:type d2:C2"? >> >> > >> >> > I believe both are conceptually correct statements but I am not sure >> >> whether the second statement is in accordance with Linked Data >> principles. >> >> > >> >> > Thanks, >> >> > Milorad Tosic >> >> >> >> -- >> >> ++ Michael Brunnbauer >> >> ++ netEstate GmbH >> >> ++ Geisenhausener Straße 11a >> >> ++ 81379 München >> >> ++ Tel +49 89 32 19 77 80 >> >> ++ Fax +49 89 32 19 77 89 >> >> ++ E-Mail [email protected] >> >> ++ http://www.netestate.de/ >> >> ++ >> >> ++ Sitz: München, HRB Nr.142452 (Handelsregister B München) >> >> ++ USt-IdNr. DE221033342 >> >> ++ Geschäftsführer: Michael Brunnbauer, Franz Brunnbauer >> >> ++ Prokurist: Dipl. Kfm. (Univ.) Markus Hendel >> >> >> > >> > >> > >
